 2 rating(s)
Current Members: 31
Bookmark URL: http://my.billingsgazette.com/Groups/Animal_Crackers |
|
|
Oh, The Irony: Rachael Ray's Dangerous Pet Food Recipes
Posted by: jn at 2:58PM MT on June 13, 2009
To promote her “Nutrish” line of packaged dog food, Food Network's Rachael Ray published a recipe intended for human consumption in a popular dog lover’s magazine (Modern Dog Magazine, Winter 2008/2009 Edition). The recipe, “Isaboo’s Butternut Squash Mac and Chedder” was inspired, states Ray, by her pit bull Isaboo’s love of squash. But readers were confused and believed the recipe, which included an ingredient that could potentially kill dogs, was intended for dogs.
Posted by: jn at 2:46PM MT on June 13, 2009
Here's a March 2008 video on the Evanger's pet food website, presented by Food Network's tv cooking personality, Rachael Ray. Ironically, Rachael Ray should be the LAST person pet owners should listen to. Ever. I'll tell you why in my next article.
You have to watch the video to appreciate the irony. I mean, the numerous ironies. First, we have Rachael Ray touring Evanger's "fabulous, high standards" manufacturing plant, guiding us through Evanger's conveyor-belt manufacturing process for their "all-natural" canned pet foods. Next we hear how "all natural" ingredients are picked exclusively by the owners, to ensure your pet is getting the very very best meat, fruit and vegetables from local markets. And we hear Ray remind us that NONE of the Evanger's products were affected by the 2007 pet food recalls. Returning to the plant, the camera zooms in on a digital analyzer that "periodic testing confirms that each pet food recipe conforms to industry standards and government regulations." And then a few statements about cat nutrition. The video oddly cuts off at this point. But, the FDA is not so impressed. The problem actually dates back to April 2008. After inspections conducted in March and April this year, yesterday the FDA suspended a Temporary Emergency Permit, claiming Evanger's "deviated from the prescribed process, equipment, product shipment, and recordkeeping requirements in the production of the company's thermally processed low acid canned food (LACF) products. The deviations in their processes and documentation could result in under-processed pet foods, which can allow the survival and growth of Clostridium botulinum (C. botulinum), a bacterium that causes botulism in some animals as well as humans." The FDA notes "Botulism is a powerful toxin that affects the nervous system and can be fatal. The disease has been documented in dogs and cats. Signs of botulism in animals are progressive muscle paralysis, disturbed vision, difficulty in chewing and swallowing, and progressive weakness to the body. Death is usually due to paralysis of the heart or the muscles used in breathing." Read the FDA's action here. You can also read Evanger's response to the FDA, where they conveniently shift blame onto their "process expert", and ignore the FDA's concerns entirely: "In August of 2008, while updating required process information to the FDA our "process authority" (processing expert) inadvertently deleted pertinent filings. Evanger's has been working with the FDA to resolve this issue quickly. This situation does not call into question the safety of any Evanger's products." Bottom line: the terms "organic", "wholesome", "all-natural", "human grade" and other nonsensical terms (and often misleading claims) in the world of "natural" pet foods, does not always mean safe, nor does it mean you are in fact, getting a "high quality" product. Evanger's is not the only pet food company to come under the FDA's inspection and enforcement action, or the public's scrutiny, and it certainly won't be the last. Least of all, should pet owners be taking advice from tv personalities and celebrities on pet foods.
Posted by: jn at 2:52PM MT on May 21, 2009
Nutro Products Announces Voluntary Recall of Limited Range of Dry Cat Food Products
Two mineral premixes were affected. One premix contained excessive levels of zinc and under-supplemented potassium. The second premix under-supplemented potassium. Both zinc and potassium are essential nutrients for cats and are added as nutritional supplements to NUTRO® dry cat food. This issue was identified during an audit of our documentation from the supplier. An extensive review confirmed that only these two premixes were affected. This recall does not affect any NUTRO® dog food products, wet dog or cat food, or dog and cat treats. Affected product was distributed to retail customers in all 50 states, as well as to customers in Canada, Mexico, Japan, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, New Zealand, and Israel. We are working with all of our distributors and retail customers, in both the US and internationally, to ensure that the recalled products are not on store shelves. These products should not be sold or distributed further. Consumers who have purchased affected product should immediately discontinue feeding the product to their cats, and switch to another product with a balanced nutritional profile. While we have received no consumer complaints related to this issue, cat owners should monitor their cat for symptoms, including a reduction in appetite or refusal of food, weight loss, vomiting or diarrhea. If your cat is experiencing health issues or is pregnant, please contact your veterinarian. Consumers who have purchased product affected by this voluntary recall should return it to their retailer for a full refund or exchange for another NUTRO® dry cat food product. Cat owners who have more questions about the recall should call 1-800-833-5330 between the hours 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM CST ---------- (UPDATE May 22) You'd think after all the major pet food recalls, Nutro could keep their original recall notice url's intact. Today they've changed them. The following url's are correct: Nutro's Website Recall Notice: http://www.nutroproducts.com/press-recall/press-recall.htmlList of Nutro Cat Food products affected: http://www.nutroproducts.com/press-recall/affected-Products.html FDA Recall Press Release: http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/nutro05_09.html
Posted by: jn at 2:59PM MT on May 6, 2009
On April 18, 2009, I wrote about the EPA's release of a list of over-the-counter (OTC) spot-on flea and tick pet products under scrutiny due to increased incident reports of adverse reactions when the products were applied to pets. The EPA removed the list on April 28, telling pet owners and consumers that additional investigation was under way and the list would be updated "soon".
Today, the EPA finally released the updated list , essentially listing the majority of all OTC spot-on treatments. The entire list can be seen here. (in PDF format) List of Registered Products: --------------------------------------- If this is any indication of the EPA's past history, it is clear they have no real intention of taking any "regulatory action" against these products and their manufacturers. Remember, these problems and incident reports date back to 2001 and earlier. One staff member of the EPA told me directly, "etofenprox is not a pyrethroid". How many monkeys at the EPA does it take to research data that concludes that etofenprox is a pyrethroid, synthetic or not, and has the exact same mechanism of action as any pyrethrin? Apparently, it takes several monkeys to come to that conclusion. Add the pesky little fact that when inert ingredients are added to an active substance (like etofenprox or any other pyrethroid/pyrethrin), the inert ingredients intensify the active ingredient and significantly increase the toxicity risk. Add another pesky little fact that with repeated use over time, the likelihood of increased toxicity is evident. Hartz, for example, recommends multiple-product use of their products on and around pets, simultaneously, as part of their "total flea and tick control" approach. These products include spot-ons, home environment sprays and powders, and other products, which include permethrins, allethrins, pyrethrins, organophosphates. Wake up, EPA!
Posted by: jn at 4:02PM MT on April 24, 2009
UPDATE: (April 24, 2009) The FDA/CVM responded to my request to validate whether or not Nutro pet products were under an FDA/CVM investigation, with a simple "Nutro Products, Inc. is not under investigation by the FDA". But there was no name or credential or department accompanying the message. I've requested further validation either by a staff's name, credential or website notice. Interesting that during the course of events, the FDA couldn't bother to post a notice on their website stating as such, this could have saved a lot of confusion amid pet owners. UPDATE: (April 28, 2009) The FDA finally placed a notice on their website, claiming they are not investigating Nutro. Meanwhile, Consumer Affairs insists the FDA confirmed to them the investigation, and the question still remains, why did the FDA deny an FOIA request regarding Nutro's pet foods? Mind you, I don't put a lot of stock into much of what Consumer Affairs reports, but any time there is mention of terms like "investigation, pet food, and the FDA", does warrant raising an eyebrow. -------------------------- April 22, 2009NUTRO Products Inc. denies it's under investigation by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — even though an official of that agency told ConsumerAffairs.com on Monday that the pet food maker is the focus of a probe. An FDA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity confirmed that ongoing investigation is the reason the FDA’s Division of Freedom of Information denied a ConsumerAffairs.com request for a list of complaints and lab results the agency has collected about NUTRO pet food. The FDA did not elaborate on the focus of its investigation, saying only that it could be criminal or civil in nature. Continue reading ....
Posted by: jn at 3:27PM MT on April 23, 2009
New NRDC Analysis Reveals Flea Collars Create Toxic Chemical Residues on Pet Fur that Threaten Human Health
SAN FRANCISCO (April 23, 2009) – The Natural Resources Defense Council has filed a lawsuit in California against major pet product retailers and manufacturers for illegally selling pet products containing a known cancer-causing chemical called propoxur without proper warning labels. In new scientific analysis also released today, NRDC found high levels of propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP), another carcinogenic neurotoxin common in household pet products, on pet fur after use of ordinary flea collars. NRDC is also petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), calling for the removal of these chemicals from pet products. “Just because a product is sold in stores does not mean it is safe,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, NRDC senior scientist and physician. “Under California law, consumers have a right to know if a flea control product exposes them to health risks before they buy it.” NRDC filed its lawsuit in California Superior Court in Alameda County against 16 retailers and manufacturers including Petsmart, PetCo, and Petstore.com, for failing to comply with California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, known as Proposition 65, which prohibits businesses from knowingly exposing consumers without proper warning to any chemical “known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive harm.” These companies have failed to caution consumers about exposure to propoxur from the use of their products, which should have been labeled with a warning as of August 11, 2007. Proposition 65 provides for penalties of up to $2,500 for every violation. Continue reading.... ----- Related Webpages:Report: Poison on Pets II - Toxic Chemicals in Flea and Tick Collars
Posted by: jn at 1:48PM MT on April 21, 2009
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed that the agency is investigating NUTRO pet food, following a series of unexplained illnesses and deaths. Consumers have been complaining for more than two years that their pets have become ill after eating NUTRO products; many have recovered when they were switched to other foods. The company has steadfastly denied that its food is to blame.
The investigation came to light when the FDA denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by ConsumerAffairs.com seeking a list of complaints and lab results the agency has collected regarding NUTRO pet food. The agency denied the request and said that releasing the information could hamper “prospective or ongoing” action by law enforcement. “The document(s) constitute record(s) compiled for law enforcement purposes, the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,” wrote the FDA’s George A. Strait, Jr., assistant commissioner for public affairs. Read on.... ------- NOTE: The linked article focuses mainly on dogs, but complaints also include Nutro cat foods. If you are feeding your pets Nutro products, please use caution and stay informed about the latest updates as the FDA’s investigation continues. As of today, the FDA's website does not have a press release statement, stay tuned.
Posted by: jn at 4:37PM MT on April 18, 2009
(UPDATE, as of Monday, April 20, 2009: On Saturday, April 18, I specifically requested the EPA modify their release web page to include the brand name Hartz as it applied to the definition of the chemical "RF2004(CCSO)", pointing out that pet owners unfamiliar with the EPA website or chemical classification may bypass it's significance. They agreed to include it on the webpage. However, they seem to be having difficulty discerning that etofenprox (ethofenprox) is a pyrethroid. I was told by the EPA that it was not classified as a pyrethroid, although the EPA website itself has public comment documents on the chemical, and numerous pesticide databases designate it as an ether-based pyrethroid. This ongoing argument may go on ad infinitum, stay tuned)
--------------------------- Following on the heels of another article I recently posted, comes an announcement from the EPA:(April 16, 2009 EPA release) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is evaluating the safety of spot-on pesticide products to control fleas and ticks for pets following a sharp increase in adverse reaction incidents. (note that "RF2004(CCSO)" in the list refers to 5 Hartz Mountain products, interesting that the brand is not listed by name, only the chemical). What the EPA didn't tell you is that these incident reports have long been reported for over a decade. And that several agreements with manufacturers of these products in the past to "re-label" the products with graphics depicting application instructions and stronger warnings on the label have done little to reduce the number of incidents related to the products. What the EPA didn't tell you is that there are safer products available, that are more effective, carry a guarantee if the product fails or causes an adverse reaction (as long as purchased by your vet) and that products sold through your vets do not contain permethrins or their derivatives.
Tips For Pet Owners: Do NOT split large doses and give to more than one pet. This is a sure way to not only predict ineffectiveness at best, and to increase the toxic potential, at worst.
Posted by: jn at 11:49AM MT on April 9, 2009
Meijer pulls toy from shelf after worms found.
Associated Press 10:38 PM CDT, April 8, 2009 GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. - Midwestern retailer Meijer has pulled a pet toy from its store shelves after a customer said she bought one that was infested with worms. Debbie Fitzgerald of New Era says she bought a "Save My Planet" pet toy in the shape of a ferret at a Meijer store in Norton Shores, just south of Muskegon. She says she discovered the worms when she got home.
(images courtesy of Debbie Fitzgerald, the owner who found the worms in the toy) Meijer Inc. officials told Grand Rapids TV stations WZZM and WOOD the item has been removed from all of the retailer's nearly 200 stores in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio. Meijer is based in Grand Rapids. Telephone messages seeking comment were left Wednesday at the company. On the Net: Meijer Inc.: http://www.meijer.com
Posted by: jn at 12:44PM MT on April 6, 2009
In February 2009, Dyne Immune LLC issued a press release boasting their new "Rabies RAPID Screen", claiming the test can detect the presence of rabies in animal saliva within 35 minutes.
Problem is, and it's two-fold, the product is neither approved by the USDA nor the FDA or FDA/CVM. Nor is the test reliable in any way, shape or form. In March 2009, the New York City Health Department in coordination with a zoological veterinarian, issued a warning letter to vets (pdf file) suggesting to avoid the test, noting the test is ineffective for diagnosing rabies and can lead to countless needless, unnecessary deaths of animals if the product is used, it is completely unreliable. The NYC Health Department focuses on such a case where a healthy kitten had been unnecessarily euthanized due to gross negligence upon a false positive result using Dyne Immune's test. A subsequent proper rabies laboratory test confirmed the kitten was NOT positive for rabies. Unfortunately, Dyne Immune LLC got their hands into a lucrative advertising market and subsequently, has passed the dubious information into the media, which has led to hundreds of pet owner and pet health websites posting misinformed merits of the product when in fact, it appears the actual product is only in a testing phase. Another problem is misinformed animal shelter staff assuming the validity of the product and potentially causing untold euthanasias of healthy, adoptable pets. Let's see what Dyne Immune posts on their website. Not very informative at best, dangerous at worst: Well, first, I think it's more productive for vets to buy a SNAP test that obtains results in as little as 10 minutes (most are), as opposed to 35 minutes. This begs the question of validity simply due to a resting sample at 35 minutes and whether temperature may affect the sample. (most reliable SNAP tests in small animal veterinary use today can obtain results in 10 minutes, the preparation is fast, a resting sample is not usually at risk for temperature variations). Next, if a negative result doesn't reflect any accuracy, why use it?
A positive would MOST CERTAINLY require additional testing, hopefully in the form of a more specific assay test (from an outside lab with knowledge and experience). But say we've already spent a lot of money on your fabulous tests, this is only increasing the cost to the veterinarian, the client, and the pet (in terms of monitoring, or quarantine). Hopefully, vets and animal shelters have the common sense to avoid your test at all costs. Perhaps even more alarming and incredulous is the fact that Dyne Immune provides no obvious information to studies, clinical research or clinical trials for the product. There is of course a link to request more information, I assume should you inquire, you'll be sent to a page with limited and dubious studies, none verified by a peer review of course. And they state the test can be used for domestic, wild and agriculture animals. So assume for a moment, you're out there in the field, you don't have a lot of opportunity to re-test that same animal, nor do you have a pristine condition in which to test. Absurd. Buyer beware, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If you come across this in articles on your favorite pet sites, please set the record straight to the webmasters of the sites.
Posted by: jn at 3:34PM MT on April 3, 2009
An LA reporter investigates over-the-counter flea and tick products for pets, a subject that has been thorns in the sides of millions of pet owners in over a decade.
Embedded in the story is a link (pdf file) to Hartz Mountain Corp's statement to the reporter after he inquired about the safety of their products, based on on-going complaints from consumers, and the EPA's lack of action. It should come as no surprise to read the statement from Hartz. After all, this is a repeat in history going back to 2002 when thousands of pet owners demanded the EPA investigate reports of serious injuries and deaths associated with over-the-counter spot-on flea and tick products, most notably, Hartz Mountain pet products. Hartz is notorious for attempts to thwart pet owners' concerns about the toxicity of their products, making absurd claims their company has been in business for so long that their products must be highly repectable, to claims of irresponsible owners misusing the products. Only after a comprehensive investigation lead by the EPA with the contributions of poison control centers across the nation and other pesticide information groups in 2003, did Hartz have to answer to the EPA. The EPA's response? Require Hartz to re-label products with minimal changes to the label, that is, require a graphic depicting appropriate administration of the product. Hartz, in no way, took responsibility to ease pet owners' fears about safety of their products. A short time later in 2005, the EPA asked Hartz to voluntarily stop the production and sale of two spot-on products for cats, but not before Hartz argued the products were safe and only after Hartz cooed to the public it was a "voluntary" action, not that they were responsible in any way. The products remained on the market for over 9 months until retailers could get them off the shelf. Then, they came out with a new product to replace those taken off the market, with, yep you guessed it, another toxic ingredient; Etofenprox, a pyrethroid. And, the EPA approved it. If you read the statement Hartz made to the LA reporter, it's clear Hartz intends to bypass the real issue and make claims their products are the safest on the market, and doesn't hesitate to claim adverse reactions to their products are far lower than the veterinary brands, which is, pure B.S. The two most popular flea and tick medications sold by veterinarians (Frontline and Advantage) are the top sellers in the nation, and are purported by veterinarians and pet owners alike to be the safest and most cost-effective for flea and tick control. They do NOT use permethrin, or pyrethroid derivatives, which Hartz Mountain pet products do, and have, for over a decade, despite their known history of toxicity in domestic animals, particularly cats. Hartz goes on to cite toxicity ratings with their EPA cohorts but fails to define those ratings, since the EPA currently does not require specific testing in domestic animals to rate pesticide use for such products. Essentially, these tests and ratings mean nothing because they are not specific to cats or dogs and manufacturers don't have to submit such specific tests to obtain registration of the product. Human and rat studies are not comparable, but allowable to use for such registration. When the EPA has in its possession years worth of data suggesting obvious harm to domestic pets from the use of permethrin and their derivatives, there is simply no excuse to continue to give leeway to manufacturers with no other agenda but to profit from clearly unsafe products. Hartz continues to downplay the serious side effects their products can leave on pets, conveniently leaving out the fact that permethrin products and their derivatives are well known in literature for having serious side effects. Some of those side effects include: irritation of skin and eyes; irritability to sound or touch, abnormal facial sensation, sensation of prickling, tingling or creeping on skin, numbness; headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive salivation, fatigue; in severe cases, fluid in the lungs and muscle twitching, seizures. (1) (1). PAN Pesticide Information In pets, all of those symptoms including others, have been reported. Death included. As is customary for Hartz, they ask the reporter not to report on stories unfounded, because frankly, all reports from pet owners or the media are just....false. Sorry, Hartz, it's much too late for that. I suppose the ASPCA's Poison Control Center database, other poison control centers across the nation, the watchdog groups on pesticide use, the veterinarians reporting adverse events, and even your cohort the EPA are also wrong? Next, along with the Hartz statement, are three supplemental pages given to the reporter. Let's examine the first (word document): In "Determining the Safety of Active Ingredients", Hartz compares the safety of their products (containing permethrin derivatives) to that of their competitors. In other words, let's shift the blame and use the EPA's less than credible testing standards to absolve responsibility for your products known to contain toxic substances. The second (word document) supplement page contains snippets of a case history of two cats who died as a direct result of using a Hartz flea product for cats according to the owner (and supported by her veterinarian). Hartz claims the product in question only contained one "active" ingredient (s-methoprene, which is an insect growth regulator) and could not possibly be the cause for the deaths of the two cats. Hartz goes on to say their own independent laboratory findings indicated some other permethrin product had been applied, but it could not have been the Hartz product the owner claimed. To ad insult to injury, in Hartz' exact words following the findings: "Hartz, of course, does not and has never marketed a cat flea & tick product containing permethrin, a powerful pyrethroid flea & tick pesticide that should never be applied to cats." Well now, Hartz, you've just been caught in a blatant lie (pdf file). Perhaps you don't even understand your own product, since you're using pyrethroids (permethrin derivatives) in your products, and permethrin and derivatives all have the same mechanism of action, they all carry the risk of the same toxic symptoms, and since you're not going to reveal all the inert ingredients used with the pyrethroids, how can you say this with a straight face? The product in question in the cats' case was Hartz UltraGuard® One-Spot Treatment The ingredients? s-methoprene 2.9% and OTHER INGREDIENTS 97.1% Of course, since Hartz is protected under the "proprietary ingredient" umbrella, they don't have to list inert ingredients, the consumer has no way of knowing what compromises the other 97.1% of the ACTIVE ingredients. Yet, Etofenprox (which is a pyrethroid), 40% by weight and s-methoprene, 3.6% is in many of their other cat products. But let's be fair and not single out this product alone, let's see what else is in many of your pet products that are as you say, incapable of causing adverse effects: Etofenprox – pyrethroid D-Phenothrin – pyrethroid Tetrachlorvinphos (which is an organophosphorous pesticide) D-Lanalool - which are citrus extracts/derivatives known for toxicity in cats Allerthrin or D-trans Allethrin - pyrethroid ester insecticide The third supplemental page I choose not to comment on, since there is not enough evidence to conclude whether a Hartz product was or was not in some way responsible for a dog's death. Without more evidence, including the owner's own veterinarian's input and test results, it is only open for interpretation. It's notable however, that the mere mention of seizure activity should have been compared. Hartz and other manufacturers love to include the terms "sensitivity" and "body tremors" on their labels, but an inexperienced pet owner may not differentiate a full body tremor from a seizure (seizure activity, by the way, is among the top symptoms reported by pet owners). Unfortunately, this is how too many of these cases end up. It's more or less "case closed" by Hartz. Hartz makes it extremely difficult for pet owners to sue the company and often requires them to sign a waiver that allows them to communicate with Hartz on their individual case but prohibits them from filing suit. Complaints, records, database information from the EPA have yielded absolutely no result or recourse for pet owners. Please note Hartz isn't the only one marketing dangerous flea and tick products. Sergeant's, Farnam and others are as well. Learn More: Are Over-the-Counter Flea-and-Tick Treatments Really Safe for Dogs and Cats? Organophosphate Toxins:Poisons on Pets-Health Hazards from Flea and Tick Products About Synthetic Pyrethroids (pdf file) AVMA comments on permethrin toxicosis What You Should Know About Flea and Tick Products Small Animal Toxicoses - Insecticides EPA National Pesticide Information Center Note: in the orginal story above, the link to www.hartzvictims.org should be taken with a huge grain of salt. While reports of injuries or death in pets treated with OTC products should never be ignored, this site in particular contains posts from anonymous sources, making it impossible to determine accuracy or validity. |
About This Blog
Because life ain't worth living without the dog who sniffs the guests and the cat who shreds the toiletpaper. All things fun and educational in the crazy world of pets.
Older Posts
Current Entries
August 7, 2009 July 31, 2009 July 29, 2009 July 26, 2009 July 20, 2009 July 18, 2009 July 15, 2009 July 13, 2009 July 9, 2009 July 2, 2009 July 1, 2009 June 27, 2009 June 26, 2009 June 21, 2009 June 19, 2009 June 17, 2009 June 15, 2009 June 13, 2009 June 12, 2009 June 11, 2009 May 28, 2009 May 25, 2009 May 24, 2009 May 21, 2009 May 20, 2009 May 19, 2009 May 7, 2009 May 6, 2009 May 4, 2009 April 24, 2009 April 23, 2009 April 21, 2009 April 18, 2009 April 16, 2009 April 11, 2009 April 9, 2009 April 6, 2009 April 5, 2009 April 4, 2009 April 3, 2009 April 1, 2009 March 31, 2009 March 30, 2009 |
